Parshat Shoftim 5769

Parshat Shoftim 5769

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Whither Truth?

At times of indecision, when ambiguity reigns and man does not know what the Divine Law expects of him, the Torah offers a path out of the darkness:

דברים פרק יז

(ח) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ:(ט) וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:(י) וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:

If there arises a matter of judgment that eludes you, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between plague and plague, being matters of controversy inside your gates; then shall you arise, and go to the place which the Eternal, your God, shall choose; And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall declare to you the ruling of judgment; And you shall do behave according to the ruling which they shall pronounce from that place which the Lord shall choose; and you shall take care to do according to all that they instruct you; D’varim 17:8-10

This passage presents the problem, as well as a seemingly straightforward and reasonable solution: A multi-tiered system of jurisprudence is established to resolve disputes and clarify the law. The sentence which immediately follows this passage, though, is potentially troublesome:

דברים פרק יז

(יא) עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:

According to the sentence of the Torah which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; you shall not stray from the sentence which they shall declare to you, to the right, nor to the left. D’varim 17:11

The judges in this system possess absolute authority; we are not to deviate from their rulings “to the right or left”. Rashi felt this phrase requires some explanation:

רש"י דברים פרק יז פסוק יא

(יא) ימין ושמאל - אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, וכל שכן שאומר לך על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל:

Right and left – even if they say to you that right is left and left is right, certainly if they tell you right is right and left is left. Rashi D’varim 17:11

Rashi's comments take the authority of the judges even further, to an almost unthinkable extreme: even if an individual's certainty regarding a specific question of law is as unequivocal as his knowledge of his own right and left hands, he must nonetheless bow to the authority of the judges, and accept their ruling even if it completely contradicts his own certainties. Rashi's comments, rather than clarifying the verse, seem to lead us away from the straightforward meaning of the text: While the passage began with a situation of doubt, Rashi's comments regard a situation of certainty. At least one of the individuals involved in a dispute over interpretation of the law is, in fact, as certain of the veracity and their own opinion as they are of their own right and left hands. Either one of the adjudicants, or one of the judges, does not share the doubts of the other parties involved, but is unable to convince the others. As a result, the decision that is reached is one that this individual “knows” to be wrong. Rashi insists, based on the seemingly superfluous words “right and left,” that the dissenting individual, be he a judge or a plaintiff, must accept the ruling of the majority, no matter how certain he is that his own opinion is correct .

But how can a person be expected to follow a ruling, especially in matters concerning Divine Truth, which he knows to be wrong?

The Ramban softens the blow somewhat, by adding one more phrase: Even if you think they are wrong, you are obligated to accept the judgment handed down by the majority of the judges. According to this approach, the dissenting opinion is not based on absolute knowledge or certainty; the dissenter believes the others to be incorrect. Nonetheless, says the Ramban, the dissenter must bow to the rule of the majority and adhere to their interpretation of the law.[1]

We are faced, then, with the larger philosophical problem: abandoning what you know to be true, in fulfillment of this commandment to embrace the ruling of the judges. The Sefer Hachinuch addresses this problem, and offers a practical approach:

ספר החינוך מצוה תצו

…כלומר שאפילו יהיו הם טועים בדבר אחד מן הדברים אין ראוי לנו לחלוק עליהם אבל נעשה כטעותם, וטוב לסבול טעות אחד ויהיו הכל מסורים תחת דעתם הטוב תמיד, ולא שיעשה כל אחד ואחד כפי דעתו שבזה יהיה חורבן הדת וחלוק לב העם והפסד האומה לגמרי. ומפני ענינים אלה נמסרה כוונת התורה אל חכמי ישראל, ונצטוו גם כן שיהיו לעולם כת מועטת מן החכמים כפופה לכת המרובין מן השורש הזה, וכמו שכתבתי שם במצות להטות אחרי רבים.

…meaning even if they are mistaken in a particular ruling it is not appropriate for us to argue with them, rather we follow their mistake. For it is better to suffer one mistake, and to remain devoted (subject) to their well-informed opinions, rather than have each and every individual act according to his own opinion, for that would cause a destruction of the religion, cause a division among the people, and the complete loss of the nation. It is for these reasons that the intention of the Torah was transmitted to the Sages of Israel, and it was commanded that the minority would always submit to the minority, along the lines of what I have described as the Mitzva to accept the majority opinion. Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 496

The Chinuch is afraid of anarchy, of legal, social, national chaos. He does a pragmatic calculation, and concludes that it is better to suffer occasional mistakes than to risk the collapse of the entire system.

Yet what is the effect of such pragmatism on the Divine system of law? What is the relationship of human error with the Word of God? The laws in question are part of a Divine system; these are Gods laws. Surely, these human mistakes – which we have been commanded to follow! - must certainly dilute the Divine.

Divine law has a weak link: the human component – man. Nonetheless, God entrusts man as a partner in the process of revealing Divine Truth to the world. Part and parcel of this system of Divine Law is this verse in Parshat Shoftim, in the 17^th chapter of D’varim: The commandment to adhere to the decisions handed down by the judges of each generation is one of the mitzvot of the Torah, a Divine Law. The question is, what happens when one Divine Law collides with another Divine Law? What happens when the judges are mistaken and they rule that left is right and right is left? In such a case, by adhering to the decision of the judges and “transgressing” against the substance of a law regarding which they are mistaken, we are, in fact, following the procedure prescribed by the Torah in this very verse.

And yet, despite this explanation we are left with a queasy feeling: How can a Torah-observant Jew possibly do something against the Torah – even if the Torah itself instructs him to do so? The victory of procedure over substance is a hollow victory, which leaves our thirst for truth unsatisfied.

The Vilna Gaon addresses this issue in his explanation of a very well-known and very troubling passage in the Talmud regarding an argument between Rabbi Eliezer and all the other sages on a point of law. Rabbi Eliezer musters one sign from heaven after the other to “prove” his position, yet the sages reject each heavenly “proof” as irrelevant to the subject at hand:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף נט עמוד ב

תנא: באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו. אמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - חרוב זה יוכיח. נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה, ואמרי לה: ארבע מאות אמה: אמרו לו: אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב. חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - אמת המים יוכיחו. חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם. אמרו לו: אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים. חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו. הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול. גער בהם רבי יהושע, אמר להם: אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה - אתם מה טיבכם? לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע, ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של רבי אליעזר, ועדין מטין ועומדין.

It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they (the other sages) did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. Others say [it was] four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the Beit Midrash prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Yehoshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what right have you to interfere?' Hence they did not fall, in honor of R. Yehoshua, nor did they resume their upright position, in honor of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Talmud Bavli Bava Metziah 59b

As a last resort, Rabbi Eliezer finally calls upon the ultimate arbiter; he asks that Heaven adjudicate and issue a decision. Remarkably, the heavens open up and a voice rings out in support of Rabbi Eliezer:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף נט עמוד ב

חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - מן השמים יוכיחו. יצאתה בת קול ואמרה: מה לכם אצל רבי אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום! עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר: לא בשמים היא. - מאי (דברים ל') לא בשמים היא? - אמר רבי ירמיה: שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני, אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול, שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כ"ג): "אחרי רבים להטת".

Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Yehoshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? — Said R. Yirmiyah: Since the Torah has already been given at Mount Sinai, we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because long ago You wrote in the Torah at Mount Sinai, (Shmot 23), "After the majority must one incline." Talmud Bavli Bava Metziah 59b[2]

This is the ultimate victory of procedure over substance; essentially, the Rabbis tell God Himself to "mind his own business." They knowingly, adamantly, set aside the truth, and teach God Himself, as it were, a lesson: Truth may take a beating, but procedure must take precedence.

But how could they proceed? How could they ignore what they now know to be the true opinion? Rabbi Eliezer was the only one to have seen the truth, and he was unable to convince his fellow judges and scholars of the logic of his opinion. Nor was there a decisive legal precedent upon which to rely. When Heaven interceded, when all of the natural world was upended by Rabbi Eliezer's truth, should the majority of the sages not have abandoned their own position, which was clearly less valid than the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

The Vilna Gaon explained the concept based on the following Midrash:

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת בראשית פרשה ח

א"ר סימון בשעה שבא הקב"ה לבראת את אדם הראשון, נעשו מלאכי השרת כיתים כיתים, וחבורות חבורות, מהם אומרים אל יברא, ומהם אומרים יברא, הה"ד (תהלים פה) חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו, חסד אומר יברא שהוא גומל חסדים, ואמת אומר אל יברא שכולו שקרים, צדק אומר יברא שהוא עושה צדקות, שלום אומר אל יברא דכוליה קטטה, מה עשה הקב"ה נטל אמת והשליכו לארץ הה"ד (דניאל ח) ותשלך אמת ארצה, אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבון העולמים מה אתה מבזה תכסיס אלטיכסייה שלך, תעלה אמת מן הארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה) אמת מארץ תצמח, … ר' הונא רבה של צפורין אמר עד שמלאכי השרת מדיינין אלו עם אלו ומתעסקין אלו עם אלו בראו הקב"ה, אמר להן מה אתם מדיינין כבר נעשה אדם.

R. Simon said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, came to create Man, the ministering angels formed themselves into groups and parties, some of them saying, 'Let him not be created,’ whilst others urged, ‘Let him be created.' Thus it is written, 'Love and Truth fought together, Righteousness and Peace combated each other" (Tehilim 85, 11). Love said, 'Let him be created, because he will dispense acts of love’; Truth said, Let him not be created, because he is compounded of falsehood’; Righteousness said, ' Let him be created, because he will perform righteous deeds’; Peace said, ‘Let him not be created, because he is full of strife.’ What did God do? He took Truth and cast it to the ground. Said the ministering angels before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You despise Your seal? Let Truth arise from the earth!’ Hence it is written, "Truth springs up from the earth" (ib. 12). … R. Huna the Elder of Sepphoris, said: While the ministering angels were arguing with each other and disputing with each other, the Holy One, blessed be He, created (Man). Said He to them: ‘Why are you debating (to no avail)? Man has already been made! Midrash Rabbah – Bereshit 8:5

The creation of man defies the attribute of Truth, the very Seal of God. Man's nature, with all its foibles and inner contradictions, cannot even approximate truth as it exists in Heaven. This is the point of the Midrash: The act of creation required an admission that man could not exist, nor should he be expected to exist, according to the level of absolute, Divine Truth which exists in Heaven. When God flung Truth to the earth, He effectively relinquished control upon truth; moreover, here on earth, there is a different level of truth, which is as least partially based upon human understanding. Truth on earth – human truth – is based necessarily on human nature. It is created by the majority opinion of our scholars; it is born of their collective understanding of Divine Law. And when the scholars are mistaken in substance, when their conclusions are erroneous, we can take comfort in the knowledge that, had God expected man to always completely identify with truth as it exists in Heaven, man never would or could have been created.[3]

This concept may help us understand another difficult episode in the Torah: When Moshe descends Mount Sinai with the Tablets of Stone in his hands, he has already been informed of the terrible sin perpetrated by the people: He was told, while he stood at the peak of the Mountain in God's Presence, that the people had strayed and had built a Golden Calf. When Moshe saw the outrage with his own eyes, he threw the Tablets to ground, shattering them.

שמות פרק לב פסוק יט

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּחַר אַף מֹשֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מידו מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר:

And it came to pass, as soon as he came near to the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing; and Moshe’s anger burned hot, and he threw the Tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount. Sh’mot 32:19

At face value, it seems that Moshe acted out of anger, and he vented his emotions on the Tablets. However, the Talmud reports that Moshe's behavior was, in fact, supported by God.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף פז עמוד א

ומנלן דהסכים הקדוש ברוך הוא על ידו - שנאמר (שמות לד) 'אשר שברת'; ואמר ריש לקיש: 'יישר כחך ששיברת'.

And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is said, 'Which you broke;' and Resh Lakish interpreted this: 'More power to you that you broke'. Talmud Bavli Shabbat 87a

In light of the Midrash we read earlier, we begin to realize that when Moshe threw the Tablets of Stone, the words of Torah written by the Hand of God, to the ground – his behavior paralleled that of God Himself: Just as God threw Truth the ground in order to create Man, so Moshe threw the words of Torah, the Divine Truth given to us on Sinai, to the ground at the foot of the Mountain. Throwing the Tablets to the ground was, in effect, the same action. As Moshe descended from heaven to the spectacle unfolding in the camp, he fully grasped the vast chasm that separates heaven and earth. Moshe had just seen and experienced Truth in heaven; he had a unique perspective of the impossibility of effectively carrying that level of pure Truth down to earth.

Moshe's behavior was meant to serve as a reminder to God: By throwing truth to the earth, God Himself acknowledged that man is tainted and limited. If man were judged based upon heavenly Truth, we would all be found guilty. There would be no chance for our survival, no justification for our existence. But once truth is flung to the earth, a new, human standard is created, by which man can be judged. God Himself, by casting Truth to the earth, had set aside pristine, Divine Truth, and created man. When that man sinned, and was at risk of annihilation, Moshe followed in God's footsteps by throwing the Tablets to the ground. By mimicking the Divine gesture which enabled man's very creation, Moshe makes a powerful argument for man's exoneration, for forgiveness: Man, who cannot be perfect and was never meant to be perfect, has this other standard of truth to use in his defense. Even when man has transgressed against God and against His attribute of Truth in the most profound way, he has this to fall back on. He can yet plead with God.

In fact, all forgiveness is, in a sense, a corruption of truth: When man sins, there should be punishment - unavoidable, natural, unyielding consequences. Yet we might suspect that those who desperately seek truth and are perturbed by any perceived lack of truth caused by the triumph of procedure over substance in the legal system, are not as demanding and truth-seeking on Yom Kippur. Would they desperately ask God to treat them with pure truth - and the justice it must necessarily bring in its wake - or would they seek compassion and clemency, a softer, more understanding scale of truth and justice?

Even when we sincerely attempt to understand God’s rules and laws, to discern and adhere to the Divine Truth that is transmitted in the laws of the Torah, we may sometimes fall short. It is important that we know that we are not expected to live according to Truth as it exists in heaven; that sort of Truth was always out of our reach.[4] Broken truth, truth on the ground, is the foundation of Creation, and the key to our continued existence.[5]

---

[1] See Ramban D’varim 17:11

רמב"ן דברים פרק יז פסוק יא

וענינו, אפילו תחשוב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו, וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם ר"ג ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (ר"ה כה א):

[2] To properly understand this passage it is important to read it in context, including the conclusion of this passage. I hope to return to this text for a fuller treatment of the entire passage at a later date.

[3] Kol Eliyahu commentary to Talmud Bavli Bava Metzia 59b

ספר קול אליהו על אגדות על הש"ס

יבואר על פי המדרש (ב"ר ח. ה) בשעת בריאת העולם חסד אמר יברא וכו' אמת אמר אל יברא מפני השקרים מה עשה הקב"ה השליך אמת ארצה שנאמר (תהלים פה. יב) אמת מארץ תצמח וצדק משמים נשקף וכו', והכוונה כך הוא דאמת אמר אל יברא מפני השקרים ר"ל מפני שהאמת צולל בין אלפים מבוכות וספקות ואי אפשר לבני אדם לקלוע בשכלם אל נקודת האמת מה עשה הקב"ה השליך אמת ארצה ר"ל שמסר האמת לשרי התורה והחכמה למטה בארץ כפי שיסכימו הם כן יקום שנאמר אמת מארץ תצמח, ומשנתן הקב"ה התורה לישראל צוה בעצמו שאם יולד איזה ספק בתורה יקום פסק הלכה שבין החכמים החולקים דוקא כפי שיבינו שרי התורה ולא זולתם ואליהם הבטיחה התורה (דברים יא. יז) על פי התורה אשר יורוך וגו', על כן כשיצא הבת קול ואמר הלכה כר"א עמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא ר"ל שכבר יצא הפסק דין מיד הדיין על כן אין אנו משגיחין בב"ק ולא בשום נברא בעולם במה שנוגע בעניני הדת רק כפי הסכמת חכמי התורה למטה בארץ.

[4] See the introduction to Responsa Igrot Moshe by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Oruch Chaim volume 1.

[5] See Rav Nachman of Breslov's similar formulation: Liqutei Halachot, Laws of Interest, law 5.

ספר ליקוטי הלכות - הלכות רבית הלכה ה

וְזֶה שֶׁמְּסַיְּמִין הַתּוֹרָה לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַתְחִילִין מִיָּד, בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים וְכוּ'. כִּי רַזַ"ל דָּרְשׁוּ עַל פָּסוּק זֶה, "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל", שֶׁשִּׁבֵּר אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת. וְזֶהוּ בְּחִינָה הַנַּ"ל, כִּי מֹשֶׁה רָאָה גֹּדֶל הַחֻרְבָּן שֶׁחָטְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל כָּךְ וְעָבְרוּ עַל כָּל הַתּוֹרָה וְעָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁהָיָה מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הָאֱמֶת עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה לְהַרְחִיק וּלְהַאֲבִיד אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, הֶרֶף מִמֶּנּוּ וְאַשְׁמִידֵם וְכוּ'. עַל - כֵּן הִשְׂכִּיל מֹשֶׁה וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת לָאָרֶץ, זֶה בְּחִינַת 'וְתַּשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה' הַנַּ"ל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ הִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הָאֱמֶת לָאָרֶץ עַל שֶׁקִּטְרֵג עַל בְּרִיאַת הָאָדָם וְכַנַּ"ל, כְּמוֹ כֵן עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה וְדָבַק בּוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת, בְּחִינַת תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת, הִשְׁלִיכָם לָאָרֶץ, לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁאַף - עַל - פִּי שֶׁהֵם תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת, אַף - עַל - פִּי - כֵן מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יָדָם עוֹלֶה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֶפֶס תִּקְוָה וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עוֹד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל - כֵּן הִשְׁלִיכָם אַרְצָה וְהִרְחִיקָם מֵעַל פָּנָיו וְחִזֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְהַאֲמִין שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַשִּיג עַמְקוּת דַּעְתּוֹ כְּלָל, עַד שֶׁהֵבִין שֶׁאַף - עַל - פִּי - כֵן הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ רוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם, וְעַל - יְדֵי זֶה הִרְבָּה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁפָּעַל בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁנִּתְרַצָּה הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וּמָחַל לָהֶם וְצִוָּה לוֹ לִפְסֹל לוּחוֹת שְׁנִיּוֹת. וְזֶהוּ בְּעַצְמוֹ בְּחִינָה הַנַּ"ל, בְּחִינַת וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה, וְעַל - יְדֵי זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמַח וְכַנַּ"ל. וּכְמוֹ כֵן עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, כִּי אִם לֹא הָיָה מַשְׁלִיךְ הַלּוּחוֹת וְהָיָה הַקִּטְרוּג גָּדוֹל, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, עַד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶבָדִין, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וְאָז הָיָה הָאֱמֶת מִתְעַלֵּם לְגַמְרֵי, כִּי אֵין מִי שֶׁיְּגַלֶּה הָאֱמֶת בָּעוֹלָם כִּי אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל. עַל - כֵּן הִשְׁלִיךְ הַלּוּחוֹת, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת, בִּבְחִינַת וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה, וְהִתְחַזֵּק בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ כִּי הֶאֱמִין שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַשִּיג אֲמִתַּת דַּעְתּוֹ כִּי מְאֹד עָמְקוּ מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו, וְזָכָה שֶׁעָלְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְנִתְרַצָּה לוֹ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וּמָחַל לוֹ וְצִוָּה לוֹ לִפְסֹל לוּחוֹת שְׁנִיּוֹת, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת תַּעֲלֶה אֱמֶת מִן הָאָרֶץ, בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְכַנַּ"ל. וְעַל - כֵּן אַחַר לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַתְחִילִין מִיָּד בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים, שֶׁהוּא סוֹפֵי תֵּיבוֹת 'אֱ'מֶ'ת, כַּמּוּבָא. לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁזֶּה עִקַּר הָאֱמֶת כְּשֶׁיּוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין כְּלָל וְאֵין מִתְרַחֲקִין בְּשׁוּם אֹפֶן, רַק מַתְחִילִין בְּכָל פַּעַם, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת 'לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל' - 'בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים', שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה בְּעוֹצֶם כֹּחוֹ הִמְשִׁיךְ דֶּרֶךְ זֶה עַל - יְדֵי שְׁבִירַת לוּחוֹת שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וְאָמַר לוֹ, יִשַּׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשָּׁבַרְתָּ. שֶׁעַל - יְדֵי זֶה יוּכַל כָּל אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהִתְחַזֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְהַתְחִיל בְּכָל פַּעַם, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת הַתְחָלַת הַתּוֹרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים, סוֹפֵי תֵּיבוֹת 'אֱ'מֶ'ת. כִּי רַק זֶהוּ עִקַּר אֲמִתַּת הָאֱמֶת שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק עַל - יְדֵי הָאֱמֶת, רַק יָבִין וְיֵדַע שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין כְּלָל וּצְרִיכִין לְהַתְחִיל בְּכָל פַּעַם מֵחָדָשׁ, כִּי אֲמִתַּת רַחֲמָיו שָׂגְבוּ מְאֹד וְכָל יְמֵי חַיֵּי הָאָדָם יוּכַל לְהַתְחִיל לְהִתְקָרֵב לַהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב, "תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד דַּכָּא" - עַד דִּכְדּוּכָא שֶׁל נֶפֶשׁ. כִּי חַסְדֵי ה' לֹא תָמְנוּ וְלֹא כָלוּ רַחֲמָיו לְעוֹלָם:

Parshat Re’eh 5769

Parshat Re’eh 5769

Rabbi Ari Kahn

In the Eyes of God and Man

The Chosen Place

The central motif of Parashat Re’eh is the obligation to create a central place of worship at a location of God's choosing:

דברים פרק יב

(ה) כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה:

But to the place which the Eternal, your God, shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, to his habitation shall you seek, and there you shall come; D’varim 12:5

When the Israelites enter the Land they are commanded to seek out a place of holiness, the place which was designated for the worship of God. All other idolatrous, cultic practices and forms of worship are forbidden; only service of the one true God is permitted. The other laws in the parsha are related to this central theme, although they take on various forms: Some are polemical, specifically addressing the substance of pagan practice, while others address more subtle, authoritative issues, such as the laws against the false prophet who undermines or corrupts faith in God and leads the people to idolatry.

The laws of forbidden food may be ancillary to this theme. In the Temple, only specific animals may be offered in sacrifice. Similarly, outside of the Temple, there are also specific animals which are may be eaten. The Rambam goes so far as to suggest that some of the laws of kashrut are themselves a polemic against pagan practices.

In Parshat Re'eh, the festivals are introduced, with the exception of Shabbat, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This "peculiarity" may also be related to the theme of centralized worship in the Temple: Only the three holidays which require pilgrimage are included. The message of this parsha is driven home, both by what is taught - and by what is not: The Temple is the central place of worship, and pagan practice is prohibited.

To be Good and Righteous

In the midst of these laws we find the following instruction:

דברים פרק יב

(כח) שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ עַד עוֹלָם כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹב וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ: ס

Observe and hear all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you forever, when you do that which is good and right (literally, straight) in the eyes of the Eternal, your God. D’varim 12:28

Rashi explains what “good and right” mean:

רש"י דברים פרק יב פסוק כח

הטוב - בעיני השמים: והישר - בעיני אדם:

The good – in the eyes of Heaven; the right (straight or upright) – in the eyes of man. Rashi D’varim 12:28

Rashi's comments here seem somewhat strange. Why is man brought into the equation, when the verse in question speaks only of man's relationship with God? “Good and right in the eyes of the Eternal, your God” does not involve any interpersonal relationship; why would Rashi force this sort of wedge into the verse? To be fair, we should note that Rashi's comment is not the fruit of his own imagination. As is his wont, Rashi explains the verse by incorporating an ancient rabbinic comment on this phrase.[1] Yet this observation does not solve our problem; it merely pushes it back a few generations. Why did those earlier sages insert the additional perspective of human perception into a verse that concerns man's relationship with God alone? Furthermore, why did Rashi choose this specific comment to explain the verse? What convinced Rashi that this is the "straightforward" meaning of the text?

Good and Right

A closer look at the two central words of this phrase may give us more insight. "Good" and "straight" are intrinsically different concepts: Good is an absolute term, a value statement. To know and declare something to be good, one needs an overarching, independent perspective.[2] The term "right" is far more subjective; what is right in one situation may be wrong in another. The Maharal makes this point in his comments on Rashi: Ultimately, only God has the perspective to see what is good – absolutely good. At best, all that man can discern is whether something is straight or twisted.[3]

The Ramban grapples with this verse as well, and refers the reader back to a verse in last week's parsha, V'etchanan:

דברים פרק ו

(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה’ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה’ לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:

18. And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of God; that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which God swore to your fathers, D’varim 6:18

Here the word “good” clearly refers to "God’s sight", to God's unique perspective. The Ramban regards this statement as an overriding commandment of the Torah – to be decent:[4] While there are many commandments that teach specific actions which must be performed or avoided, in the Ramban’s view this is a broad law which creates an umbrella for other interpersonal laws.[5] Thus, aside from specific obligations and prohibitions, the Torah also legislates decency. The Ramban reiterates this view regarding our verse in Parshat Re'eh.

While we have no trouble accepting that the Torah is in favor of decency, or even that this overriding commandment is extremely important, we are none the wiser as to its introduction at this particular juncture, in the context of the centrality of the Temple and the rejection of idolatry. Why is this principle of interpersonal law taught here?

Jerusalem is Surrounded By Mountains

Understanding more about the Temple and Jerusalem may provide a solution to this quandary. There is an interesting dichotomy between the chosen place of worship – eventually identified as the Temple in Jerusalem - and pagan worship which was practiced elsewhere. In this week’s parsha we find a phrase, echoed numerous times in Scripture, used to describe the practice of idolatry:

דברים פרק יב

(ב) אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן:

You shall completely destroy all the places where the nations which you shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; D’varim 12:2

The mountains, hills and trees in this verse seem an apt description of the Land of Israel, but this is no innocuous guide to the landscape. This seemingly benign phrase provides insight into the psyche of the sinner. The Land of Israel is full of mountains, hills and trees. A person who wanted to serve his idol could easily and immediately turn to any available mountain, hill or tree. This made idolatry extremely accessible; it was a wonderful solution, an "instant" salve for those in need of immediate gratification.

Not so Jerusalem. As the psalmist sings,

תהלים פרק קכה

(ב) יְרוּשָׁלִַם הָרִים סָבִיב לָהּ …

Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains… Psalm 125:2

This is not only a lesson in geography or topography, this is a spiritual statement. Getting to Jerusalem, to the Temple, requires an arduous climb. Like the physical world, the spiritual world has rules; in modern parlance, one might say “No pain, no gain.”[6] Spiritual growth is necessarily the result of hard work, long hours, introspection; this is the path to enlightenment, and it is represented by the metaphor of the physical Jerusalem. Whereas idolatry was practiced under every tree, on every hill, on every mountain, required no effort, was immediately available like a narcotic for an addict in withdrawal--it provided no growth. Idolatry is just a "quick fix".

Serving God requires an act of surrender. Man must first recognize that he is created in God’s image; then, he can worship his Maker. The idolater worships his own handiwork. Instead of an act of submission, it is an act of narcissism. In serving God, man must recognize the impossible chasm between God’s greatness and man's failings; this is the starting point for the grueling journey. It is man's striving to shorten this divide, to bridge the chasm by learning to emulate God, that creates spiritual growth. Only when man acknowledges that he may be able to emulate God, to draw closer to the source of holiness and spirituality, but will never breach the gulf, is man a true servant of God.

A central place of worship was not merely about geography; it was more than a socially-accepted, nationally-appointed place to pray and serve God. It was meant to be transformative. Religious growth is designed to combat man's self-absorbed, self-involved proclivities. Climbing to Jerusalem was the polar opposite of idolatry, bringing about a metamorphosis that cancelled out self-indulgence and immediate gratification.

Despite all this, the climb to Jerusalem for pilgrimage may not have been enough to uproot underlying pagan attitudes. A person who came to Jerusalem to perform sacrificial rites may have confused the Jewish festivals with pagan service of a needy god. Man still stood the risk of perfunctory performance, devoid of religious transformation.

Such a schism results in a compartmentalized worldview: On the one hand, man serves God in Jerusalem; on the other hand, his personal life is unaffected. He lacks decency in his relationships with his fellow men. The idolatry is still there, buried beneath the religious practice, for such a person is still worshiping himself, submitting to his own needs, seeking immediate gratification. Service of God is a perfunctory gesture if the person performing it is unwilling to emulate God in their everyday dealings with others, to strive for and maintain a level of spirituality and holiness that flows from the spiritual apex of Temple sacrifice, but reaches far beyond. While he may have served God on the festival, a person who does not make the transformation in the interpersonal sphere has not surrendered to God. In the words of our verse, it is not enough to do only what is good in the eyes of God; we also need to do what is "straight" in the eyes of man, for these concepts are intertwined. Neither perspective is sufficient; only the two perspectives together will bring harmony between man and God and between man and man. Only when we make that climb, and allow the surrender of our own will to permeate all of our relationships, will we realize the prophetic vision expressed by King David in his Song of Ascents, recited by the Levites on the final steps leading to the Temple[7]:

תהלים פרק קכה

(א) שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת הַבֹּטְחִים בַּה’ כְּהַר צִיּוֹן לֹא יִמּוֹט לְעוֹלָם יֵשֵׁב: (ב) יְרוּשָׁלִַם הָרִים סָבִיב לָהּ וַה’ סָבִיב לְעַמּוֹ מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם: (ג) כִּי לֹא יָנוּחַ שֵׁבֶט הָרֶשַׁע עַל גּוֹרַל הַצַּדִּיקִים לְמַעַן לֹא יִשְׁלְחוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים בְּעַוְלָתָה יְדֵיהֶם: (ד) הֵיטִיבָה ה’ לַטּוֹבִים וְלִישָׁרִים בְּלִבּוֹתָם:(ה) וְהַמַּטִּים עֲקַלְקַלּוֹתָם יוֹלִיכֵם ה’ אֶת פֹּעֲלֵי הָאָוֶן שָׁלוֹם עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל:

A Song of Ascents: Those who trust in God shall be like Mount Zion, unassailable and abiding forever. As Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains, so God surrounds his People, from this time forth and forever more. For the scepter of the wicked shall not rest upon the share allotted to the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands to do wrong. God is good to those who are good, and to those who are straight (upright) in their hearts. As for those who turn aside to their crooked ways, God shall lead them away with the evil doers; but peace shall be upon Israel. Psalm 125

Peace upon Israel is dependent upon our own actions, upon our own quest to combine the two perspectives of the verse in Parshat Re'eh, reflected in King David's Songs of Ascent to the Temple: Only by surrendering our will to God's perspective, and allowing this perspective to shape and define the human interactions that comprise our personal lives, will we bring about lasting peace. We must be "good" in God's eyes, which will help us to know how to be "righteous" in the eyes of our fellow men. The mountain is steep, the climb arduous; the distance we must travel is immense, seemingly impossible. But the first step is the difficult one: the abandonment of self-serving idolatry, the sacrifice of self-service for true service of God. When man takes this first step, those last fifteen Steps of Ascent to the Temple in Jerusalem come into sight, and we can almost hear the songs of the Levites.

May those who are still crooked be made straight and righteous. May we all find the courage to take that first step on the climb to Jerusalem, on the path to becoming "good in the eyes of God" and "upright in the eyes of man." May there be peace upon Israel.

---

[1] Sifri Re‘eh, piska 27. Rashi follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas Rabbi Yishmael inverses the teaching; the latter reads “good” as in the eyes of man, while “straight” is in the eyes of God.

ספרי פרשת ראה פיסקא כז

וכי תעשה הטוב והישר. הטוב בעיני שמים והישר בעיני אדם דברי ר' עקיבא. ר' ישמעאל אומר הישר בעיני אדם והטוב בעיני שמים. וכן הוא אומר משלי ג ומצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלהים ואדם:

[2] See Rashi Bereishit 1:7, and the comments of the Torah Temima D’varim chapter 12 note 113

רש"י בראשית פרק א

…ומפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב ביום שני, לפי שלא נגמרה מלאכת המים עד יום שלישי, והרי התחיל בה בשני, ודבר שלא נגמר אינו במילואו ובטובו, ובשלישי שנגמרה מלאכת המים והתחיל מלאכה אחרת וגמרה, כפל בו כי טוב שני פעמים, אחד לגמר מלאכת השני ואחד לגמר מלאכת היום:

תורה תמימה הערות דברים פרק יב הערה קיג

קיג) נראה דמכוין לפרש כן הלשונות האלה ע"פ מש"כ רש"י בפ' בראשית (א' ז') דכל דבר שלא נראה גמר ענינו ותכליתו אינו יוכל להקרא טוב אע"פ שבתחלתו נראה טוב, יעו"ש. ולפי"ז דבר הנראה לטוב בעיני אדם אפשר רק לקרוא בשם ישר, מה שנראה ישר לעינים בשעתו, אבל לא בשם טוב, יען כי לתכלית שם טוב דרוש לדעת עתידות הדברים ותוצאותיו מה שאי אפשר לאדם קצר עין לראות, ולכן א"א לומר הטוב בעיני אדם כי אם בעיני ה' הרואה לתכלית וקץ. ודעת ר' ישמעאל לדרוש בענין אחר, וקבענו כדעת ר"ע דבעלמא הלכה כותיה מחבירו, וכ"כ רש"י כאן

[3] Maharal Gur Aryeh D’varim 12:28

ספר גור אריה על דברים פרק יב פסוק כח

הטוב בעיני שמים וישר בעיני האדם. ומה שלא פירש איפכא, דהשתא הוי "הישר" דבק אל "בעיני ה'", וזה מסתבר יותר לפרש. ויראה כי יותר יש לפרש "הטוב" 'בעיני שמים', כי לשון "טוב" נאמר על דבר שהוא טוב בעצמו, אבל אינו נראה לבריות. ולפיכך יאמר "הטוב" 'בעיני שמים', כי השם רואה ללב, ויודע אם הוא טוב. אבל אדם לא ידע זה בעיניו. אבל לשון "ישר" הונח ראשונה על כל דבר ישר ואינו מעוות, והישר והמעוות הוא למראית העין, והאדם יש לו מראית עין גם כן, לכך יתפרש "הישר" 'בעיני אדם'. וזה ידוע, כי יאמר על הקו - שהוא ישר או מעוות - למראית העין. ואתיא זה כרבי עקיבא בספרי. אבל לרבי יוסי הוי איפכא; "הישר" 'בעיני ה'', ו"טוב" 'בעיני הבריות', שצריך לעשות טוב לבריות, ואין צריך לעשות טוב אל השם יתברך, רק שיהיו מעשיו ישרים. וכאשר תדקדק עוד תמצא דבר עמוק במחלוקת זה, ואין להאריך:

[4]Ramban D’varim 6:18

רמב"ן דברים פרק ו

וזה ענין גדול, לפי שאי אפשר להזכיר בתורה כל הנהגות האדם עם שכניו ורעיו וכל משאו ומתנו ותקוני הישוב והמדינות כלם, אבל אחרי שהזכיר מהם הרבה, כגון לא תלך רכיל (ויקרא יט טז), לא תקום ולא תטור (שם פסוק יח), ולא תעמוד על דם רעך (שם פסוק טז), לא תקלל חרש (שם פסוק יד), מפני שיבה תקום (שם פסוק לב), וכיוצא בהן, חזר לומר בדרך כלל שיעשה הטוב והישר בכל דבר, עד שיכנס בזה הפשרה ולפנים משורת הדין, וכגון מה שהזכירו בדינא דבר מצרא (ב"מ קח א), ואפילו מה שאמרו (יומא פו א) פרקו נאה ודבורו בנחת עם הבריות, עד שיקרא בכל ענין תם וישר:

[5] In a similar fashion the Ramban understands the commandment to be holy as an umbrella for laws between man and God. See Ramban on Vayikra 19:2. Rabbi Moshe of Drohitchin (1705-1781) in his work Magid Mishna (commenting on Rambam, Mishne Torah Laws of Neighbors 14:5) combines both teachings of the Ramban (though he cites neither):

רמב"ן על ויקרא פרק יט פסוק ב

ולפי דעתי אין הפרישות הזו לפרוש מן העריות כדברי הרב, אבל הפרישות היא המוזכרת בכל מקום בתלמוד, שבעליה נקראים פרושים: והענין כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים והתירה הביאה איש באשתו ואכילת הבשר והיין, א"כ ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות, ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו, וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות, שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה, והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה:

מגיד משנה הלכות שכנים פרק יד הלכה ה

קדם אחד וקנה וכו'. מבואר בהלכות וכ"כ ז"ל ועניין דין בן המצר הוא שתורתנו התמימה נתנה בתקון מדות האדם ובהנהגתו בעולם כללים באמירת קדושים תהיו והכוונה כמו שאמרו ז"ל קדש עצמך במותר לך שלא יהא שטוף אחר התאוות וכן אמרה ועשית הישר והטוב והכוונה שיתנהג בהנהגה טובה וישרה עם בני אדם ולא היה מן הראוי בכל זה לצוות פרטים לפי שמצות התורה הם בכל עת ובכל זמן ובכל ענין ובהכרח חייב לעשות כן ומדות האדם והנהגתו מתחלפת לפי הזמן והאישים והחכמים ז"ל כתבו קצת פרטים מועילים נופלים תחת כללים אלו ומהם שעשו אותם בדין גמור ומהם לכתחילה ודרך חסידות והכל מדבריהם ז"ל ולזה אמרו חביבין דברי דודים יותר מיינה של תורה שנאמר כי טובים דודיך מיין:

[6] See Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik “Man of Faith in the Modern World,” Reflections of the Rav volume 2 (Rabbi Avraham Besdin, ed.), page 137.

[7] Talmud Bavli Sukka 51b

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף נא עמוד ב

על חמש עשרה מעלות היורדות מעזרת ישראל לעזרת נשים כנגד חמש עשרה (מעלות) [שיר המעלות] שבתהלים, שעליהן לוים עומדין בכלי שיר ואומרים שירה.

There upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the Fifteen Songs Of Ascents In the Psalms. It was upon these that the Levites stood with their instruments of music and sang their songs. Talmud Bavli Sukka 51b

Tu b’Av old article

Tu b’Av

Dancing in the Streets

Rabbi Ari Kahn

excerpt from "Emanations"

The Fifteenth of Av (Tu b’Av) is a holiday of unclear significance. Although certain elements of the celebration of this day have captured the imagination of popular Israeli culture, the day itself remains obscure. While not specifically mentioned in the Torah, it is described by the Mishna at the end of Ta’anit by way of a surprising analogy: This hitherto unknown day is compared with Yom Kippur, arguably the holiest day of the year.[1]

R. Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There never were in Israel greater days of joy than the Fifteenth of Av and the Day of Atonement. On these days the daughters of Jerusalem used to walk out in white garments which they borrowed in order not to put to shame any one who had none. All these garments required ritual dipping. The daughters of Jerusalem came out and danced in the vineyards exclaiming at the same time, “Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on [good] family. ‘Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised’. And it further says, ‘Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates’. Likewise it says, ‘Go forth, o ye daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, even upon the crown wherewith his mother had crowned him on the day of his espousals, and on the day of the gladness of his heart’. ‘On the day of his espousals:’ this refers to the day of the giving of the Law. ‘And in the day of the gladness of his heart:’ this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days. (Ta’anit 26b)

This Mishna is the concluding Mishna of the tractate of Ta’anit, which deals with fast days and the laws of fasting. The previous Mishna had taught the laws of the ninth of Av. Now the Mishna continues to the next day of importance in Av – Tu b’Av. Ostensibly, the intent of the Mishna is to end on a positive note, especially after all the tragedies enumerated in the previous section. Indeed, the Mishna concludes with the building of the Temple, clearly a cause for monumental joy.

A scene of dancing and celebration is described, raising two questions: First, the description of Yom Kippur as a day of song and celebration seems dissonant with our understanding of Yom Kippur. And secondly, what is the significance of Tu b’Av, and why did it deserve the same celebration as Yom Kippur?

The Talmud answers the first question while raising the second, explaining the joy of Yom Kippur while pondering Tu b’Av:

I can understand the Day of Atonement, because it is a day of forgiveness and pardon and on it the second Tablets of the Law were given, but what happened on the Fifteenth of Av? (Ta’anit 30b)

Ecstatic joy, which is absent from our contemporary experience of Yom Kippur, is taken for granted in the Talmud: The experience of Yom Kippur was palpably different in Temple times. We are told that the red string in the Temple turned white, serving as a veritable spiritual barometer of God’s forgiveness of man. When the people were shown this tangible sign of forgiveness, celebration erupted.

R. Yishmael said: But they had another sign too: a thread of crimson wool was tied to the door of the Temple, and when the he-goat reached the wilderness the thread turned white, as it is written: ‘Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow’. (Yoma 68b)

They would accompany him (the Kohen Gadol) to his house. He would arrange for a day of festivity for his friends whenever he had come forth from the Sanctuary in peace. (Yoma 70b)

This type of joy was spontaneous, even though it was a yearly occurrence on Yom Kippur. Singing, dancing and celebration broke out all over. The women of Jerusalem began dancing in the vineyards. Marriage was on their minds. Perhaps this is the reference at the end of the Mishna:

‘On the day of his espousals:’ this refers to the day of the giving of the Law.

The Talmud had described Yom Kippur as a day of “forgiveness and pardon and on it the second Tablets of the Law were given.” Yom Kippur encapsulates the mutual commitment between the Jewish People and God. It is the day that the Jews finally took their vows and were forgiven for the indiscretion of the Golden Calf. The Seventeenth of Tammuz, the day Moshe first came down with the Tablets in hand, should have been the day when the Jews solidified their commitment with God; instead it became a day of infamy. The fate of the entire community was held in abeyance in the following weeks until Moshe was invited once again[2] to ascend the mount on the first day of Elul. Forty days later, on the Tenth of Tishrei, the day celebrated henceforth as Yom Kippur, Moshe descended with the second Tablets, and with God’s message that He had forgiven the Jewish Nation. This is what the Mishna describes as “the day of his espousals”.[3]

This idea dovetails with the teaching that one’s wedding day is a day of personal forgiveness, and has a cathartic, “Yom Kippur- like” element.[4] For this reason, tradition dictates that bride and groom fast on their wedding day, an additional expression of the atoning powers of the day. This may also explain the choice of Torah reading for Yom Kippur afternoon: The section of the Torah that enumerates forbidden relations. The backdrop of celebration in the streets explains the need, on this day more than others, for a warning against unmitigated, excessive frivolity, and a demarcation of forbidden relations.

While the celebratory aspect of Yom Kippur has been identified, the Fifteenth of Av remains elusive. The Talmud offers numerous explanations for the joy on that day:

Rav Yehdah said in the name of Shmuel: It is the day on which permission was granted to the tribes to inter-marry. … R. Yoseph said in the name of R. Nachman: It is the day on which the tribe of Binyamin was permitted to re-enter the congregation [following the episode of the concubine in Givah]. …Rabbah b. Bar Chanah said in the name of R. Yochanan: It is the day on which the generation of the wilderness ceased to die out. …‘Ulla said: It is the day on which Hoshea the son of Elah removed the guards which Yerovam the son of Nevat had placed on the roads to prevent Israel from going [up to Jerusalem] on pilgrimage, and he proclaimed ‘Let them go up to whichever shrine they desire.’ R. Mattenah said: It is the day when permission was granted for those killed at Betar to be buried. …Rabbah and R. Joseph both said: It is the day on which [every year] they ceased to fell trees for the altar. It has been taught: R. Eliezer the elder says: From the Fifteenth of Av onwards the strength of the sun grows less and they no longer felled trees for the altar, because they would not dry [sufficiently]. R. Menashya said: And they called it the Day of the Breaking of the Axe. From this day onwards, he who increases [his knowledge through study] will have his life prolonged, but he who does not increase [his knowledge] will have his life taken away. What is meant by ‘taken away’? — R. Yoseph learnt: Him his mother will bury. (Ta’anit 30b-31a)

While the Talmud offers six different causes for celebration on Tu b’Av, many of these reasons seem insufficient to justify the type and intensity of celebration described. At first glance the various explanations seem unrelated, but we may be able to find a common thread running through them by looking back to the first “Tu b’Av” ever celebrated:

R. Abin and R. Yochanan said: It was the day when the grave-digging ceased for those who died in the wilderness. R. Levi said: On every eve of the Ninth of Av Moshe used to send a herald throughout the camp and announce, ‘Go out to dig graves’; and they used to go out and dig graves in which they slept. On the morrow he sent out a herald to announce, ‘Arise and separate the dead from the living.’ They would then stand up and find themselves in round figures: 15,000 short of 600,000. In the last of the forty years, they acted similarly and found themselves in undiminished numerical strength. They said, ‘It appears that we erred in our calculation’; so they acted similarly on the nights of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th. When the moon was full they said, ‘It seems that the Holy One, blessed be He, has annulled that decree from us all’; so they proceeded to make [the fifteenth] a holiday. Their sins caused it {the Ninth of Av}to become a day of mourning in this world, in the twofold destruction of the Temple. That is what is written, ‘Therefore is my harp turned to mourning, and my pipe into the voice of them that weep.’ Hence, “And the people wept that night” (Bamidbar 14, 1). (Midrash Rabbah – Eichah, Prologue 33)

This description is certainly morbid, yet it succeeds in capturing the pathos of the yearly Tisha b’Av commemoration. The crying in the desert at the report of the spies created a negative paradigm for the rejection of the Land of Israel and it’s holiness, and even more, the rejection of God. The yearly commemoration of this breach of faith was systematic, inexorable: The entire generation of the Jews who had been redeemed from Egypt and crossed the Red Sea would die out in the desert. They had doubted God’s ability to complete His promise; they had rejected the Promised Land and their own destiny, and each year on this day of infamy they would dig their own graves and lie down in them, arising the next morning to take stock of their situation. The character of this day, the spiritual power of the paradigm unleashed at the sin of the spies, was revisited on future generations when Jews rejected the sacred. Tragedy struck over and over on this same date.

The Fifteenth of Av marked the end of the death sentence for the sin of the spies. Only on the night of the Fifteenth, by the light of the full moon, could they be certain that the chapter of the spies was closed. This alone would be sufficient rationale for the Mishna of Ta’anit, regarding Tish’a b’Av, to conclude with a teaching about Tu b’Av: On a conceptual level, the Fifteenth marks the end of the Ninth of Av.[5] During First Temple times the people certainly did not fast on Tisha b’Av but they may have celebrated Tu b’Av.

The end of the death sentence is the main cause for celebration offered by the Sages. But what of the other explanations offered by the Talmud? Arguably the strangest of these relates to the pagan king[6] Hoshea the son of Elah. While it may be argued that he displayed remarkably liberal thinking and was not particular whether his constituents served foreign deities wherever they chose, or served God in the Beit HaMikdash, he certainly did not lead people toward Jerusalem, toward the service of God! Why would this be a cause for celebration? Hoshea’s decree reversed the nefarious deeds of his predecessor on the throne, Yerovam, yet even this reversal seems insufficient cause for celebration: Hoshea merely removed the guards charged with preventing pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Furthermore, during Hoshea’s reign the Ten Tribes were carried into captivity. He was not a leader to be remembered in song and celebration.

In order to understand the significance of Hoshea’s decree we must first understand the implications of Yerovam’s actions. Due to the spiritual failings of Shlomo, God wrested part of the monarchy from the Davidic family.

And it came to pass at that time when Yerovam went from Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahiya the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and the two were alone in the field; And Ahiya caught the new garment that was on him, and tore it in twelve pieces; And he said to Yerovam, 'Take you ten pieces; for thus said the Lord, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I will tear the kingdom from the hand of Shlomo, and will give ten tribes to you; But he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel; (1 Melachim 11:29-32)

Yerovam ignored God’s plan and built an alternative place of worship in an attempt to deter the people from Jerusalem, and, perhaps, allegiance to the Family of David. Motivated by jealousy, totally misdirected and self-centered, Yerovam did the unthinkable: he built places of worship replete with Golden Calves:

Then Yerovam built Sh'chem in Mount Ephraim, and lived there; and went out from there, and built Penuel. And Yerovam said in his heart, 'Now shall the kingdom return to the House of David; If this People go up to do sacrifice in the House of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this People turn back to their Lord, to Rehavam King of Yehudah, and they shall kill me, and go back to Rehavam King of Yehudah. (1 Melachim 12:25-27)

And the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said to them, ‘It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold your gods, O Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. And he set one in Beit-El, and the other he placed in Dan. (1 Kings 12:28,29)

Unlike Yerovam, Hoshea was not afraid or jealous of Jerusalem or the Davidic dynasty. He may have been an idolater, but he was not filled with spiritually self-destructive hatred. Thus, Hoshea removes the guards stationed by Yerovam, indicating healing from the hatred and jealousy, and the possibility of reconciliation.

This observation will help us reveal the message our Sages were trying to convey. The sages associated the destruction of the Temple with the sin of baseless hatred,[7] which has its roots in the fratricide perpetrated by Cain. This strand of baseless hatred is first discerned within the Jewish community in the hatred of the sons of Leah toward the sons of Rachel. Yerovam’s scheme should be seen within this context, proving that a son of Rachel could be just as bad, if not worse than the sons of Leah.

The Temple in Jerusalem was a manifestation of the unity of Israel, bringing together diverse spiritual attributes within the community of Israel. The primary tribes are Yehuda, descendents of the son of Leah who would one day be kings, and the tribe of Yosef, descendents of the favorite son, the son of Rachel. It may be argued that had the sons of Ya’akov been able to unite, the Temple would have stood in the portion of Yosef (Jerusalem) and the seat of the monarchy would have been in the realm of Yehuda. With the sons of Rachel and Leah united, this Temple would never have fallen. Unfortunately, the brothers are never able to resolve their differences with Yosef. The son of Rachel who becomes the unifying symbol of the people is Binyamin, and the Temple eventually stands in his portion. This explains the tears of Yosef and Binyamin at the moment when Yosef reveals himself to his brothers:[8]

And he fell upon his brother Binyamin’s neck, and wept; and Binyamin wept upon his neck. (Bereishit 45:14)

R. Eleazar said: He wept for the two Temples destined to be in the territory of Binyamin and to be destroyed. And Binyamin wept upon his neck: he wept for the Mishkan of Shiloh which was destined to be in the territory of Yosef and to be destroyed. (Megila 16b – see Rashi Bereishit 45:14)

The hatred of the brothers created the spiritual power for the hatred that would one day destroy the Temple. This simmering conflict is what caused the Temple to be built in the portion of Binyamin, and not in the portion of Yosef. This is the same hatred that poisoned Yerovam and motivated him to place guards in the path of would-be pilgrims to Jerusalem. On Tu b’Av, when Hoshea rescinds the evil edict of Yerovam, the division and hatred cease.

On Tisha b’Av the tribes of Yosef and Yehuda were united: When the spies returned only Yehoshua and Calev, from the tribes of Yosef and Yehuda respectively, remained steadfast in their desire to enter Israel. They serve as the prototypes for the Messiah from Yosef, and the Messiah from David (Yehuda), who will usher in the messianic era.[9] Tragically, the other tribes did not rally around those two leaders; what should have been the beginning of the great march to Israel became the day the Land of Israel was rejected. What could have been a day of celebration became a day of mourning.

This theme of division and reunion may be the key to some of the other reasons for Tu b’Av festivities offered by the Talmud. Significantly, the prohibition of inter-tribal marriage began with the daughters of Zelofchad – from the tribe of Yosef. Surely, this law, which maintained each tribe as insulated and separate, also had a negative impact on interpersonal relationships between Jews. Tu b’Av marked the end of this division. Likewise, the isolation of the tribe of Binyamin: Their role in the episode of the concubine of Givah was certainly an outrage [See the Shoftim, Chapters 19,20,21]. But the isolation of an entire tribe, specifically of the son of Rachel, was even more significant in light of the ongoing division between the sons of Rachel and the sons of Leah. Tu b’Av, in all three of these episodes, marks a reunion of the estranged sons of Rachel with the larger community of Israel.

This, then, is the unifying theme in all the explanations offered by the Talmud for the celebration of Tu b’Av: The battle of Betar was the culmination of the Bar Kochva rebellion, which was doomed to failure because the students of Rabbi Akiva did not treat one another with respect (see essay on the omer). Without national unity, the Third Temple could not be built: The failure of Bar Kochva’s messianic movement was caused by the breakdown of the Jewish community, represented by Rabbi Akiva’s students who could not get along with one another.

Another of the reasons for Tu b’Av celebrations now seems less strange: The days begin to get shorter, or in the Talmud’s words “the sun loses its strength”. The Midrash, in recounting the first Tu b’Av in the desert, noted that on this date the moon is full. The tension between the sun and moon represents the first struggle for dominance, for leadership. This ancient, primordial struggle between the sun and the moon[10] is the same struggle for dominance as the struggle between the sons of Ya’akov, and between Yerovam and the Davidic dynasty: two kings cannot share one crown. In fact, the resolution of this struggle for dominance is one of the harbingers and prerequisites for the messianic age: The Talmud speaks of the complementary leadership of a Messiah, son of David, and a Messiah, son of Yosef, which will pave the way to the messianic age[11].

As we noted above, the first catastrophe of Tisha b’Av was the failure of the spies, and the nation’s inability to rally around a united core of leadership- Yehoshua/Yehuda and Calev/Yosef. The Land of Israel was forfeited, the messianic age passed up, and the Temple, which cannot tolerate disunity, laid to waste on this day. The spiritual character of this day is one of discord, internal struggle. Conversely, Tu b’Av, is a day which has the potential to rebuild the community of Israel and, as a result, the Temple. Unity of the community is a prerequisite for building and preserving the Temple; this is the message of the last phrase of the Mishna with which we began:

Likewise it says, ‘go forth, o ye daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, even upon the crown wherewith his mother had crowned him on the day of his espousals, and on the day of the gladness of his heart’. ‘On the day of his espousals:’ this refers to the day of the giving of the law. ‘And on the day of the gladness of his heart:’ this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days. (Ta’anit 26b)

After describing the unique celebration of Yom Kippur and Tu B’Av, the Mishna intertwines the giving of the Law and building of the Temple. As we have seen, “the giving of the Law” refers to Yom Kippur.[12] Now we understand why the reference to “the building of the Temple” refers to Tu b’Av. On this day the daughters of Jerusalem would share their clothes and dance merrily in the streets, united. The Zohar identifies the type of material the garments are made from:

“Scarlet” (tola'at shani) is connected with the Fifteenth day of Av, a day on which the daughters of Israel used to walk forth in silken dresses. (Zohar Sh’mot 135a)

The significance of silk and its connection to the unique spiritual character of Tu b’Av lies in a more mystical message: Silk is not like wool or linen. The Vilna Gaon points out that the prohibition of mixing wool and linen – shaatnez- emanates from the hatred between Cain and Abel. On these glorious days the daughters of Jerusalem freely share their clothing, with no hatred or jealousy in their hearts.[13] The distinctions made by the requirements of shaatnez are irrelevant on this day. Perhaps this served as a type of healing for the hatred the brothers directed toward Yosef and his coat of many colors. This may also be the significance of the Talmud’s description of God’s attempt to lure Yerovam back into the fold:

‘After this thing Yerovam turned not from his evil way.’ What is meant by, ‘after this thing’? — R. Abba said: After the Holy One, blessed be He, had seized Yerovam by his garment and urged him, ‘Repent; then I, thou, and the son of Yishai [i.e.. David] will walk in the Garden of Eden.’ ‘And who shall be at the head?’ inquired he. ‘The son of Yishai shall be at the head.’ ‘If so,’ [he replied] ‘I do not desire [it].’(Sanhedrin 102a)

God grabbed Yerovam by his clothing to break his jealousy; alas, Yerovam could only join if he was given center stage and the leading role. Ultimately he was unable to control his self-centeredness. The image of his garment, torn into twelve pieces by the prophet, prevails over the image of God Himself attempting to mend the torn fabric of Jewish community.

This is the secret of Tu b’Av and the reason that marriages abound on this day. Marriage of two individuals, the most basic of all relationships, is only possible if each one controls innate egoism and narcissism. The rebuilding of the Temple is dependent on the community being able to unite in a similar manner. The first step is controlling hatred and jealousy, breaking the boundaries that exist between people. The Talmud therefore associates the mitzva of bringing joy to the newly married couple with building Jerusalem:

And if he does gladden him (i.e., the groom) what is his reward?… R. Nahman b. Isaac says: It is as if he had restored one of the ruins of Jerusalem. (Brachot 6b)

Tu b’Av marks, celebrates, even creates this type of healing behavior. Jealousies are broken down, tribal distinctions disappear, new unions are created.

We are taught that in the future the fast days marking the Temple’s destruction will be transformed into days of celebration:

Thus says the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month (17^th of Tammuz), and the fast of the fifth (9^th of Av), and the fast of the seventh (Yom Kippur), and the fast of the tenth(10^th of Tevet), shall become times of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts to the house of Yehuda; therefore love truth and peace. (Zecharia 8:19)

Rav Zadok HaKohen from Lublin taught that the Ninth of Av will indeed become a holiday – a seven-day holiday similar to Pesach, consisting of festival on the first and last days as well as intermediate days (Chol HaMoed). We may theorize that the first day of the holiday, Tish’a b’Av, will commemorate the coming of the Messiah[14]. Then there will be Chol haMoed, and on the seventh day – Tu B’Av - the Temple will be rebuilt. The day when Jews arose unscathed from their graves in the desert will witness the spiritual rebirth of the entire nation, symbolized by the building of the Temple. This will be followed by the ultimate Resurrection: Once again, the people will climb from their graves, as the world achieves perfection and completion. On that day the joy in the streets will be echoed in the vineyards surrounding Jerusalem, and will reverberate throughout the entire world.

---

[1] Rav Menachem Azarya Defano, and Rav Zadok Hakohen (Yisrael Kedoshim section 5) both point at the power of minhag –custom- at the core of this day. We know of Torah festivals, and Rabbinic festivals; Tu B’Av has its unique charisma as an expression of the power of custom.

[2] According to tradition, Moshe ascended the mountain three times: the first and last, to receive the Tablets, and, in between, to pray for forgiveness for the People. See Rashi on Shmot 33:11, Devarim 9:18.

[3] See Rashi’s Commentary on the Mishna 26b “Zeh”.

[4] This idea may be found in The Jerusalem Talmud Bikurim Chapter 3 section 3 page 65c. See Rashi Bereishit 36:3, Torah Temmimah Bereishit 28:9, שו"ת יחווה דעת חלק ד סימן סא

[5] Whether the fifteenth of Av marks the end of the sadness of Tish’a b’Av is a point debated by the Halachik authorities. The Mishna (Ta’anit 4:6, 26b) teaches that from the beginning of Av happiness is decreased, and debates whether this sadness continues until Tu b’Av or until the end of the month. See Shulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim section 551:1, Mishna Brura bet opines that the entire month is sad, whereas Chatam Sofer rules that Tu b’Av marks the end of the sadness. See Piskei Teshuva 551:2.

[6] For more on this king see II Melachim, Chapter 15:30. “And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him, and killed him, and reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Yotam the son of Uzziah.”

[7] See Yoma 9a

[8] See Explorations page

[9] See Sukka 52a

[10] See the essay on Rosh Chodesh

[11] See Sukkah 52a. Rashi on Yishayahu 11:13 states that the two Messiah’s will not be jealous of one another.

[12] See Rashi Commentary on the Mishna 26b “Zeh”

[14] According to Rabbinic tradition, the Messiah is born on Tish’a b’Av.